Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 19 Jun 2010 10:29 On Jun 19, 12:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b0eec1c0-3967-4690-a5ad-42458893fa10(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:a4cf3177-76db-41a9-9521-78a222a48ae2(a)v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 17, 6:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> rbwinn wrote: > > >> >> [...] > > >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with transformation of > >> >> > coordinates. Time can be measured about any way imaginable. > >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t. > > >> >> So is it your opinion that t and t' are just symbols devoid of > >> >> physical > >> >> meaning? > > >> > t'=t has a physical meaning. It is what is called an identity in > >> > algebra. It means that t' is time on a clock in S. > > >> No .. it means t is the time shown on a correct clock in S and t' is the > >> time shown on a correct clock in S' .. and that these two times are > >> always > >> the same. > > >> Do you disagree ? > > > Certainly, I disagree. > > Then go learn some physics until you agree. > > > Experiment shows that a clock in S' is > > slower. > > Yes > > > If Isaac Newton or Galileo had been given that information do > > you think they would have continued to claim that the two times were > > always the same? > > No .. they would probably have come up with something other thanGalilean > transforms. Are you not clever enough for that? > > [snip irrelevance] > > Nothing left to comment on Anything else would have a length contraction. Sorry. The Galilean transformation equations are the only transformation equations that do not have a length contraction.
From: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 10:37 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bf9c809a-1cbd-42ac-9ed1-4a77858493a4(a)t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 19, 12:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:b0eec1c0-3967-4690-a5ad-42458893fa10(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:a4cf3177-76db-41a9-9521-78a222a48ae2(a)v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 6:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> rbwinn wrote: >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with transformation of >> >> >> > coordinates. Time can be measured about any way imaginable. >> >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t. >> >> >> >> So is it your opinion that t and t' are just symbols devoid of >> >> >> physical >> >> >> meaning? >> >> >> > t'=t has a physical meaning. It is what is called an identity in >> >> > algebra. It means that t' is time on a clock in S. >> >> >> No .. it means t is the time shown on a correct clock in S and t' is >> >> the >> >> time shown on a correct clock in S' .. and that these two times are >> >> always >> >> the same. >> >> >> Do you disagree ? >> >> > Certainly, I disagree. >> >> Then go learn some physics until you agree. >> >> > Experiment shows that a clock in S' is >> > slower. >> >> Yes >> >> > If Isaac Newton or Galileo had been given that information do >> > you think they would have continued to claim that the two times were >> > always the same? >> >> No .. they would probably have come up with something other thanGalilean >> transforms. Are you not clever enough for that? >> >> [snip irrelevance] >> >> Nothing left to comment on > > Anything else would have a length contraction. No .. there are other transforms one could write with no length contraction. You could also write transforms with length contraction and still with t' = t. > Sorry. No .. you're not > The Galilean > transformation equations are the only transformation equations that do > not have a length contraction. No, they aren't the only ones. But regardless, they are proven to be WRONG by the very experiments you site (as have I) because the t' = t of Galilean transforms MEANS that all synchonized correct clocks tick at the same rate and show the same time no matter where they are or how they (or those reading them) are moving. That is what t' = t means. So you cannot havea valid transform with t' = t in it. You need to CHANGE the Galilean transforms to something OTHER than t' = t for them to be consistent with know experimental evidence. Your denial of those facts is your problem. Claiming otherwise is a lie.
From: rbwinn on 19 Jun 2010 12:10 On Jun 19, 7:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:bf9c809a-1cbd-42ac-9ed1-4a77858493a4(a)t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 12:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:b0eec1c0-3967-4690-a5ad-42458893fa10(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:a4cf3177-76db-41a9-9521-78a222a48ae2(a)v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Jun 17, 6:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> rbwinn wrote: > > >> >> >> [...] > > >> >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with transformation of > >> >> >> > coordinates. Time can be measured about any way imaginable. > >> >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t. > > >> >> >> So is it your opinion that t and t' are just symbols devoid of > >> >> >> physical > >> >> >> meaning? > > >> >> > t'=t has a physical meaning. It is what is called an identity in > >> >> > algebra. It means that t' is time on a clock in S. > > >> >> No .. it means t is the time shown on a correct clock in S and t' is > >> >> the > >> >> time shown on a correct clock in S' .. and that these two times are > >> >> always > >> >> the same. > > >> >> Do you disagree ? > > >> > Certainly, I disagree. > > >> Then go learn some physics until you agree. > > >> > Experiment shows that a clock in S' is > >> > slower. > > >> Yes > > >> > If Isaac Newton or Galileo had been given that information do > >> > you think they would have continued to claim that the two times were > >> > always the same? > > >> No .. they would probably have come up with something other thanGalilean > >> transforms. Are you not clever enough for that? > > >> [snip irrelevance] > > >> Nothing left to comment on > > > Anything else would have a length contraction. > > No .. there are other transforms one could write with no length contraction. > You could also write transforms with length contraction and still with t' = > t. > > > Sorry. > > No .. you're not > > > TheGalilean > > transformation equations are the only transformation equations that do > > not have a length contraction. > > No, they aren't the only ones. But regardless, they are proven to be WRONG > by the very experiments you site (as have I) because the t' = t ofGalilean > transforms MEANS that all synchonized correct clocks tick at the same rate > and show the same time no matter where they are or how they (or those > reading them) are moving. That is what t' = t means. So you cannot havea > valid transform with t' = t in it. You need to CHANGE theGalilean > transforms to something OTHER than t' = t for them to be consistent with > know experimental evidence. Your denial of those facts is your problem.. > Claiming otherwise is a lie. I don't use clocks. I tell time by the rate of motion of S' relative to S. For example, if S' has a velocity of 10 feet per minute relative to S, then I can put marks every ten feet on S', and every minute a mark on S' will line up with a single mark on S. Or I can put marks every ten feet on S and every minute a mark on S will line up with a single mark on S'. That is what I mean by t'=t. We are going to do away with clocks because they confuse scientists.
From: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 12:22 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7c0e24b6-8c14-472a-bbfc-e8d4408b6d8c(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 19, 7:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:bf9c809a-1cbd-42ac-9ed1-4a77858493a4(a)t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 19, 12:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:b0eec1c0-3967-4690-a5ad-42458893fa10(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:a4cf3177-76db-41a9-9521-78a222a48ae2(a)v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 6:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> rbwinn wrote: >> >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with transformation of >> >> >> >> > coordinates. Time can be measured about any way imaginable. >> >> >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t. >> >> >> >> >> So is it your opinion that t and t' are just symbols devoid of >> >> >> >> physical >> >> >> >> meaning? >> >> >> >> > t'=t has a physical meaning. It is what is called an identity in >> >> >> > algebra. It means that t' is time on a clock in S. >> >> >> >> No .. it means t is the time shown on a correct clock in S and t' >> >> >> is >> >> >> the >> >> >> time shown on a correct clock in S' .. and that these two times are >> >> >> always >> >> >> the same. >> >> >> >> Do you disagree ? >> >> >> > Certainly, I disagree. >> >> >> Then go learn some physics until you agree. >> >> >> > Experiment shows that a clock in S' is >> >> > slower. >> >> >> Yes >> >> >> > If Isaac Newton or Galileo had been given that information do >> >> > you think they would have continued to claim that the two times were >> >> > always the same? >> >> >> No .. they would probably have come up with something other >> >> thanGalilean >> >> transforms. Are you not clever enough for that? >> >> >> [snip irrelevance] >> >> >> Nothing left to comment on >> >> > Anything else would have a length contraction. >> >> No .. there are other transforms one could write with no length >> contraction. >> You could also write transforms with length contraction and still with t' >> = >> t. >> >> > Sorry. >> >> No .. you're not >> >> > TheGalilean >> > transformation equations are the only transformation equations that do >> > not have a length contraction. >> >> No, they aren't the only ones. But regardless, they are proven to be >> WRONG >> by the very experiments you site (as have I) because the t' = t >> ofGalilean >> transforms MEANS that all synchonized correct clocks tick at the same >> rate >> and show the same time no matter where they are or how they (or those >> reading them) are moving. That is what t' = t means. So you cannot >> havea >> valid transform with t' = t in it. You need to CHANGE theGalilean >> transforms to something OTHER than t' = t for them to be consistent with >> know experimental evidence. Your denial of those facts is your problem. >> Claiming otherwise is a lie. > > I don't use clocks. Liar .. you explicitly talked about clocks > I tell time by the rate of motion of S' relative > to S. Then that is your clock > For example, if S' has a velocity of 10 feet per minute > relative to S, then I can put marks every ten feet on S', and every > minute a mark on S' will line up with a single mark on S. Then that is your clock > Or I can > put marks every ten feet on S and every minute a mark on S will line > up with a single mark on S'. Then that is your clock > That is what I mean by t'=t. It doesn't matter what YOU mean .. it matters what it means in terms of the Galilean transforms (which you claim to be using). It means time is the same, and ticking rates the same, regardless of position or velocity. And as we know that is NOT the case, we know that Galilean transforms are wrong. > We are > going to do away with clocks because they confuse scientists. No .. they show you to be wrong. Here's a tip: either get used to being wrong, or learn physics.
From: rbwinn on 19 Jun 2010 13:10
On Jun 19, 9:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7c0e24b6-8c14-472a-bbfc-e8d4408b6d8c(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:bf9c809a-1cbd-42ac-9ed1-4a77858493a4(a)t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 19, 12:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:b0eec1c0-3967-4690-a5ad-42458893fa10(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:a4cf3177-76db-41a9-9521-78a222a48ae2(a)v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 6:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> rbwinn wrote: > > >> >> >> >> [...] > > >> >> >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with transformation of > >> >> >> >> > coordinates. Time can be measured about any way imaginable. > >> >> >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t. > > >> >> >> >> So is it your opinion that t and t' are just symbols devoid of > >> >> >> >> physical > >> >> >> >> meaning? > > >> >> >> > t'=t has a physical meaning. It is what is called an identity in > >> >> >> > algebra. It means that t' is time on a clock in S. > > >> >> >> No .. it means t is the time shown on a correct clock in S and t' > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> time shown on a correct clock in S' .. and that these two times are > >> >> >> always > >> >> >> the same. > > >> >> >> Do you disagree ? > > >> >> > Certainly, I disagree. > > >> >> Then go learn some physics until you agree. > > >> >> > Experiment shows that a clock in S' is > >> >> > slower. > > >> >> Yes > > >> >> > If Isaac Newton or Galileo had been given that information do > >> >> > you think they would have continued to claim that the two times were > >> >> > always the same? > > >> >> No .. they would probably have come up with something other > >> >> thanGalilean > >> >> transforms. Are you not clever enough for that? > > >> >> [snip irrelevance] > > >> >> Nothing left to comment on > > >> > Anything else would have a length contraction. > > >> No .. there are other transforms one could write with no length > >> contraction. > >> You could also write transforms with length contraction and still with t' > >> = > >> t. > > >> > Sorry. > > >> No .. you're not > > >> > TheGalilean > >> > transformation equations are the only transformation equations that do > >> > not have a length contraction. > > >> No, they aren't the only ones. But regardless, they are proven to be > >> WRONG > >> by the very experiments you site (as have I) because the t' = t > >> ofGalilean > >> transforms MEANS that all synchonized correct clocks tick at the same > >> rate > >> and show the same time no matter where they are or how they (or those > >> reading them) are moving. That is what t' = t means. So you cannot > >> havea > >> valid transform with t' = t in it. You need to CHANGE theGalilean > >> transforms to something OTHER than t' = t for them to be consistent with > >> know experimental evidence. Your denial of those facts is your problem. > >> Claiming otherwise is a lie. > > > I don't use clocks. > > Liar .. you explicitly talked about clocks > > > I tell time by the rate of motion of S' relative > > to S. > > Then that is your clock > > > For example, if S' has a velocity of 10 feet per minute > > relative to S, then I can put marks every ten feet on S', and every > > minute a mark on S' will line up with a single mark on S. > > Then that is your clock > > > Or I can > > put marks every ten feet on S and every minute a mark on S will line > > up with a single mark on S'. > > Then that is your clock > > > That is what I mean by t'=t. > > It doesn't matter what YOU mean .. it matters what it means in terms of theGalileantransforms (which you claim to be using). It means time is the > same, and ticking rates the same, regardless of position or velocity. And > as we know that is NOT the case, we know thatGalileantransforms are wrong.. > > > We are > > going to do away with clocks because they confuse scientists. > > No .. they show you to be wrong. Here's a tip: either get used to being > wrong, or learn physics. Well, I did learn the physics of this. Now you have said that my marks on S' and S constitute a clock, two clocks, to be exact, one showing t and one showing t'. If you see nothing wrong with these two clocks, then perhaps we might proceed. Now you have some sort of device in S' which repeats itself at some rate which is not synchronized with t and t'. You want to call the rate of that device t'. You cannot do that because the variable t' is already taken to denote the rate of advance of the marks on S relative to a single mark on S'. There is an axiom of algebra which forbids the use of the same variable to show rates which differ from each other, even if they are said to be measuring the same thing. If you are going to call the rate of the device in S' by the variable t', then you first have to convert that rate of measurement so that it agrees with the marks on S and S', which you agreed were clocks. We know one thing about the rate of the device in S'. It shows the speed of light to be 300,000 km/sec as counted by the device. That means that during a second counted by the device, light proceeds 300,000 km. We can show how this relates to t'=t by the fact that light in S proceeds 300,000 km/sec of time measured by t in that frame of reference. In other words using the correct equations for Einstein's analysis of the situation, x'=x-vt cn'=ct-vt where n' is time as counted by the device in S'. |